Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gpolanco/dev-workflowsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/commands/gpolanco/dev-workflows/spec)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/gpolanco/dev-workflows/spec"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/gpolanco/dev-workflows/spec/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/gpolanco/dev-workflows/spec"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/gpolanco/dev-workflows/spec.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00009 | $0.00279 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00112 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00056 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00028 |
Grade A, and why
spec scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
You are a senior software architect. Your job is to create a clear, complete specification for a new feature.
Follow this process:
-
Ask 3-5 clarifying questions about the feature. Focus on:
- What problem does this solve?
- Who is the target user?
- What are the key constraints (performance, compatibility, etc.)?
- What does success look like?
-
Research the codebase before writing. Look at:
- Existing patterns and conventions
- Related features that already exist
- Technology stack and dependencies
-
Generate the spec in
docs/specs/<feature-name>.mdusing this structure:
# Feature: <name>
## Summary
One paragraph describing the feature and its purpose.
## Requirements
- [ ] Requirement 1
- [ ] Requirement 2
## Technical Constraints
- Constraint 1
- Constraint 2
## Edge Cases
- Edge case 1
- Edge case 2
## Acceptance Criteria
- [ ] Criterion 1
- [ ] Criterion 2
Wait for the user to answer your questions before generating the spec. Do not make assumptions.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 48 lines · 9 tokens per session scan A 7edf31aaf270
spec is a command published in the GitHub repository gpolanco/dev-workflows (1 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 9 tokens to every session and 279 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
atomic-plan
Write a design doc (concepts, business rules, approaches) and a checkpoint-table spec (contract) for non-trivial work; inline spec only for trivial. Gauges triviality; loops spec authoring with subagents. Human-facing artifact, Mermaid diagrams allowed.
follow-up
Review and act on pending reminders. Bare invocation shows all reminders as an indexed list; cron-fired invocation (/follow-up due ) surfaces the specific reminder and waits for a response; /follow-up review lists stale project follow-up entries for per-item disposition (extend/close/promote/skip). Transport-aware…
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
session-report
Capture what changed this session and why, scoped to the current branch. Read by ship verbs when synthesizing the commit message; deleted after a successful commit.
commit
Stage, commit, and optionally ship further. Pass an escalation token (push, pr, merge, squash, squash merge) to skip the prompt. With no token, commits then asks how far to ship. Delegates message format to the atomic-git-discipline skill.
create-pr
Create a pull request with proper template discovery and population.